3 comments

The laborer has full equal ability to produce. They have at their disposal their labor. The employer must hire in order to get the work done that hiring will get done. Without that labor the work doesn't get done. The employer is at the mercy of the employee who could take their gains and walk away at any time, while the employer is stuck with the capital goods for which he is liable to maintain.

Capital "earns" nothing unless it is utilized. That means maintenance, wear and tear, replacement, refitting, and the ever present concern that, maybe, the owner has guessed wrong and they won't make a future profit sufficient to cover their costs. Those costs include the wages paid for labor which have already been paid.

The employee foregoes the effort of planning, finding markets, finding supplies, dealing with cash flow, and all the other things by which the capital to pay him is generated, while the employer foregoes spending his time toiling so that he can spend the time planning, finding markets, finding supplies, dealing with cash flow, and all the other things by which the capital is generated to pay the employee.

Yet because employment is a contract, the employee gets paid before profits, if any, are calculated.

If the laborer wants to enjoy "full value of their production" by being self employed, go for it. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so. Yet the vast majority of individuals prefer a regular paycheck to the risk that their next meal depends on whether or not they can find a market for their production, in which they cannot engage while market hunting.

In my opinion, the mistake of thinking there is some mortal contest between "employers" and "employees", and especially the myth that employers don't do any work but simply sit back and profit from the labors of others, is due to a basic misunderstanding of what "division of labor" means.